0.00 -10:30 updates on his ministry 10:31- 30:39: Vigano excommunication and conditional consecration/ SSPX reaction 30:40- 42:30 SSPX future consecration of Bishops and their view on the new rites 42:30- 47:36 the Latin Mass Ban by Francis 47:37- 56:45 on the infallibility of canonizations 56:46 - 1:14:45The role and authority of Traditional Bishops today 1:14:46- 1:19:56 meeting with Bishop Pivarunas 1:19:57- conclusion
Isn't it logical that Catholics who are true to their faith reject novel beliefs, prayers, or practices that contradict or are inconsistent with Catholic Tradition, regardless of the source, including even a Pope or "an angel from Heaven," as commanded in Sacred Scripture?
The longer the SSPX keeps denying the truth and misleading their faithful, the more difficult it will be for them to come to the truth and admit that only the sedevacantist position, which is the Catholic position, is true. I'm wondering if that is ever going to happen, but I would not bet my money that it will.
I have another favor to ask. Can Bp. Roy present a detailed demonstration for the conclusion that the traditional clergy have ordinary jurisdiction, though in extraordinary circumstances? The entire traditional movement has labored for 60 years under the notion that it does not have ordinary jurisdiction. We can't just have a bold statement from Msgr. Roy. We need the proofs upon which the conclusion is based. The public needs it. Not only the clergy. Because this is pivotal and affects all.
The most detailed explanation about it is in the new edition of Maxence Hecquard’s book, “The Crisis of Authority in the Church” , but it’s only in French.
Perhaps, dear host, you may be instrumental in the great work of unifying the sedevacantist bishops by more and more featuring them here in substantive interviews, like this one.
@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad A few years ago, I actually brought this subject up to one of the bishops, whom I will not name. His reply angered me greatly. He said that because there is no pope, the sedevacantist bishops uniting together would be tantamount to schism, to forming a parallel church. I marveled that he could think anyone stupid enough to believe such utter nonsense. That he has deceived himself into believing it himself, is hard enough to believe. These endless divisions and splits are causing more and more Catholics to lose all respect for these men. Their fractiousness cannot be pleasing to God.
Fr. Pierre Roy: Why, afterall, have we permitted ourselves these last 30 years to criticize the Fraternity of Saint Peter? Why have we more recently criticized Campos? Why did we repudiate the agreement reached in 2006 by the Institute of the Good Shepherd? Having recently asserted to a superior that it will be necessary for us to cease criticizing these communities, I received the following response: “Ah, but we will continue to criticize them!” I then asked why, by what principle. I received no further reply. HERE IS THE REPLY YOU ALREADY KNOW: Because they have compromised by embracing as "Catholic" the Bogus Ordo Mess and the errors of Vatican II and the SSPX has not.
As Bisbop Altamira said during my interview with him (bishop Altamira does the restored Pius 12 Holy Week), “it is not something to fight over”. It would be interesting to hear Bishop Roy explain his position on the issue
It’s always a good talk. It’s an easy one though. If we agree Pius XII is a true pope the restored Holy Week is infallibly protected. It’s a schismatical position to be against it….and to be against the popes decision to restore it.
I am not in favor of such a strong position against the pre 55 Holy Week. There is a good video in defense of the reformed Holy Week by Catholic Crusade Films (who I have talked with) who takes a similar stance as well as a video interview with Stephen Heiner who is in favor of the pre 55 on Pre Vatican 2 Catholic Show discussing the issue. I am willing to stay neutral on the subject (although I lean toward to the restored Holy Week view).
The Edwardian Reformation was a part of the English Reformation that took place during King Edward VI's reign from 1547 to 1553. It marks the first time the Church of England became wholly Protestant, abandoning most of the Catholic undertones of Henry VIII's Church. During his reign, the Act of Uniformity, approved by Parliament in 1549, took the reformation forward by establishing a Book of Common Prayer. This contained the wording of prayers and the order of service to be used throughout the kingdom in place of the old Catholic practices. In belief & practice, the Act of Uniformity denied the Catholic belief of the Real Presence & the Mass as sacrificial act of atonement. Consequently, there was a defect of intention in administering the reformed rites of episcopal consecration & priestly ordination. In 1898, Pope Leo XIII published His Papal Encyclical APOSTOLICAE CURAE, in which He declared that the Edwardian rites were utterly null & void. Quaeritur: If we apply the same reasoning of the sacramental principles employed by Leo XII in APOSTOLICAE CURAE, do we arrive at the same conclusion regarding the Reformed Rites of Paul VI?
Follow up: The USCCB says that Vatican II "redefined" Holy Orders to match the Anglicans, and admits the new rites are similar to the Anglicans. In fact, they say that the Anglican rites should not be considered invalid, based on Vatican II.
@@dariusclovis1374I have argued that as well. Leo XIII said the Anglican rites were invalid because of a defect in form, yes, but mainly because their understanding of a bishop or priest meant they had no intention of being Catholic bishop or priest. Lumen Gentium changed the concept of orders to be more inline with Anglicans, which would mean the Conciliarists have no real intention of being Catholic priests...
I really wish that the criteria that Pope Leo XIII established would be discussed more frequently. Pius XII established the criteria for univocality of the form, but Leo XIII explained that the rest of the rite, as well as the understanding of the sacrament play a role in the intention. If the Rite is not a Catholic rite (which means it deviates from what the Church has received and approved), then we cannot say for certain that the intention is Catholic...especially when the theology of the sacrament has changed.
This discussion of the nature of jurisdiction exercised by true traditional bishops is interesting. Although not constrained by defined territorial borders given the absence of a supreme pontiff, it nevertheless needs a type of permanence in relationship between bishop and priests characterized by obedience. In my view, the legitimacy of a Bishop's authority is dependent on his obedience to the the Pope. Since we are in interregnum, this must be to the magisterium, liturgy & disciplines to the last reigning Pope. Otherwise, the Church lacks unity, which is a Mark of the Church. She is one. Unity is found only in obedience to authority. This is another problem with Cassiciacum. It creates ambiguity in authority which eliminates unity. This is why obedience to Pope Pius XII's Holy Week is a big deal as is rejection of the Material Formal thesis. Both create division and questions of truth and validity. Unity is dependent upon certainty in truth and validity. When prelates take it upon themselves to adjust the liturgy they create disunity and when prelates take it upon themselves to redefine authority over time or in type, they create disunity. Who can know he is in the Church when he is with a Bishop who is a voluntary source of disunity? Catholicism truly is an all or nothing proposition. Novelty is something that by its nature is outside the Church. It is novel to find types of authority from anticatholics long cut off from any legitimacy. It is novelty to reject disciplines and liturgies imposed by the last Vicar of Christ to reign. As these realities become more evident over time, it would be nice to see the pinnacle virtue of humility rise in these validly consecrated Bishops and see them coalesce around Pope Pius XII to embrace the unity that has existed only where Bishops have not embraced these usurpation. Who can know he is in the Church otherwise. Does this makes sense? Any error should be highly problematic to a man aspiring to remain in the Church.
I understand but let me say this. There's an attitude of scruples for Latin Rite Catholics. For example, a Latin Catholic doesn't feel he loves God if he doesn't say 5 decades of the Rosary every day and so on. The truth is Sacraments aren't that hard to confer, but with this attitude of scruples, we are tempted to doubt a lot of things and feel like something great is needed to consecrate a Bishop, so we find it hard to believe that a man we deem weak can perform something so great in our mind. Now I'm not saying consecration of a Bishop isn't great, but humanly speaking, a 12 year old can say the traditional form that requires validity. It's just two sentences. But I understand your situation. I always say, Faith requires Trust also. Trust that the person teaching us the faith is well intentioned. But then, we believe in consecrations that happened in the Middle Ages, of people we don't even know, but can't believe consecrations of people we know. It's definitely scruples.
Lefebvre's position i believe was to not to consecrate bishops without ABSOLUTE necessity without acceptance from Rome and i believe that's what He's excelency Fellay is doing. "Doesnt mean that all is allowed now just because the church is in crisis." SSPX needs to be justified in accordance to canon law as an act of charity to it.
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad My impression of him rests on what he said about the first NOM-like and NOM-leading so-called 1955 reforms, non on his way of speaking English. Bishop Sanborn adressed this problem with very convincing points a few days ago. Generally, only to have been a prior with the FSSPX is not enoigh that someone should be consecrated to the Episcopacy, I think.
Ok, disregard my last comment. I personally understand both positions, but lend toward Bishop Espina and Altamira who do the Pius 12 changes (along with the CMRI). Bishop Pierre Roy on the other hand does the pre 55.
The entire question of sedevacantism aside (a whole other silly issue in itself), Fr. Roy should seriously reflect on his position as a valid bishop. I like the man. He seems to be very educated, speaks well, and could do great thinks to maintain the True Church. But, unfortunately, he finds himself in a precarious situation - the Thuc line (1977 and onward) is very much doubtful. The two witnesses (Dr. Heller and Dr. Hiller) that were present at these consecrations in 1981confirm, on a recorded statement, that Archbishop Thuc was not in a clear state of mind, and that he had to be corrected in the form. He was a very good and intelligent bishop that had a rough life, God rest his soul. His conditional "consecration" of that non-catholic nutt job Laborie is just another example of how much the Archbishop had lost his mind. This is the same bishop that Archbishop Lefevre highly respected. But even Lefevre publicly warned the faithful to have nothing to do with this new Thuc line when he had heard what Archbishop Thuc had done (multiple times). Just as it could be possible (extremely doubtful) for a Norvus Ordo ordination or consecration to be valid (I am not stating that I believe that they are valid), we still do not recognize the validity because doubt exists. Anytime doubt is present, we must avoid it at all costs. Why would anybody play with Apostolic succession. It is always better to have 100% certainty than even the slightest doubt. I am not judging Fr. Roy, I just think it is a valid point to truly consider. It is better to be sure early on and be conditionally re-consecrated than to start creating another line of doubtful priests like the Dolanites and the Sandbornites. I have my many issues with the new direction of the SSPX; however, at least, for now, we have absolute certainty that our line of succession is valid. At least up to the four bishops that Archbishop Lefevre consecrated. Let's see what the future holds with Fellay's new direction. This situation in the Church is only going to get worse. And as we pray for the restoration of the Church, we should also pray that the traditionalist groups maintain some sort of cohesiveness. The more we start acting like the Norvus Ordo counter church by creating more muddy waters, the harder we make it to find the remnants of the True Church. We need to be battling to bring more and more people into what is left of the True Church, not creating more confusion amongst ourselves. Viva Cristo Rey!
Do you have a link or a source for those comments by the “two witnesses”? From this source below (Dr Heller) says otherwise “In order to set aside any doubts concerning the Episcopal Consecrations by the deceased (+1984) Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc, which not only certain persons and groups in the United States, and in Central and South America, but recently also again in Germany, have asserted, I, Eberhard Heller, declare on oath that I was personally present at the aforesaid Consecrations dispensed by His Excellency, Archbishop Ngô-dinh-Thuc: I testify that His Excellency Mgr. M.L. Guérard des Lauriers O.P., was consecrated bishop on the 7th day of May, 1981 in Toulon, France, by His Excellency Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc; and that Their Excellencies Mgr. Moisés Carmona and Mgr. Adolfo Zamora also received Episcopal Consecration in Toulon, France on the 17th day of October, 1981, by His Excellency Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc. The Consecration was according to the “Pontificale Romanum” (Rome, 1908). Mgr. Ngôdinh-Thuc performed the ceremony in full possession of his faculties and in view of assisting the nead [sic] of the Roman Catholic Church, which he has presented in his public “Declaratio” on February 25, 1982, concerning “Sede Vacante”. Munich, 14th of February 1992 (sig.:) Eberhard Heller Eberhard Heller, “Affidavit Declaring the Episcopal Consecrations of Their Excellencies Bishop M. L. Guerard des Lauriers, Bishop Moisés Carmona and Bishop Adolfo Zamora,” Einsicht XXI, no. 5 (February 1992), p. 119. This declaration was published in Latin, German, French, Spanish, and English. On July 10, 1991, Dr. Heller had already sworn to this in the same way, but the affidavit was published in German only (see Eberhard Heller, “Eidesstattliche Erklärung zu den Bischofsweihen von I.E. Mgr. M. L. Guerard des Lauriers, Mgr. Moisés Carmona und Mgr. Adolfo Zamora,” Einsicht XXI, no. 2 [July 1991], p. 47).
Also for those who may be interested check out this video of Bishop Pivarunas defense of Bishop Thuc czcams.com/video/sd9AEhAD16s/video.htmlsi=NMjoY1Ax5Zpa4M0Y And this of Fr Radecki defense czcams.com/video/2tKfSxGab_I/video.htmlsi=aQFngeAerZamvHij
0.00 -10:30 updates on his ministry
10:31- 30:39: Vigano excommunication and conditional consecration/ SSPX reaction
30:40- 42:30 SSPX future consecration of Bishops and their view on the new rites
42:30- 47:36 the Latin Mass Ban by Francis
47:37- 56:45 on the infallibility of canonizations
56:46 - 1:14:45The role and authority of Traditional Bishops today
1:14:46- 1:19:56 meeting with Bishop Pivarunas
1:19:57- conclusion
Please communicate to Bp. Roy that many in America are interested in what he has to say. Tell him to keep in frequent contact with us.
I am sure he sees the comments. Glad you enjoyed the interview
Wow! This interview is wow!!
Glad you liked it. Like and share!
@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad I can like but I don't know anyone who would be interested in this.
Excellent discussion. As a fellow Canadian, I always appreciate Bishop Roy’s insights. It would be nice if he were able to visit western Canada.
Greetings from Brazil.
Greetings! What happened to all your videos?
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad Copyright problems. The videos will be back in two months.
Fast after midnight for Holy Communion. Thank you for this interview,it's good to know +Roy offers the pre-55 Missale Romanum.
Viva Bishop Roy! Do you consider interviewing Bishop da Silva next?
I would. Him and Bishop Davila
Will you interview Bishop Markus Ramolla?
Je trouve tous les jours de nouveaux evêques? d'ou vient Mgr Roy.....
Isn't it logical that Catholics who are true to their faith reject novel beliefs, prayers, or practices that contradict or are inconsistent with Catholic Tradition, regardless of the source, including even a Pope or "an angel from Heaven," as commanded in Sacred Scripture?
The longer the SSPX keeps denying the truth and misleading their faithful, the more difficult it will be for them to come to the truth and admit that only the sedevacantist position, which is the Catholic position, is true. I'm wondering if that is ever going to happen, but I would not bet my money that it will.
I have another favor to ask. Can Bp. Roy present a detailed demonstration for the conclusion that the traditional clergy have ordinary jurisdiction, though in extraordinary circumstances? The entire traditional movement has labored for 60 years under the notion that it does not have ordinary jurisdiction. We can't just have a bold statement from Msgr. Roy. We need the proofs upon which the conclusion is based. The public needs it. Not only the clergy. Because this is pivotal and affects all.
The most detailed explanation about it is in the new edition of Maxence Hecquard’s book, “The Crisis of Authority in the Church” , but it’s only in French.
@saosimao Thank you. I wish I spoke French.
A friend of mine told me that a few weeks ago. He went to the sspx in garden grove and the priest celebrating mass was a Novus Ordo
It could have been the same priest I was referring to
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad probably. I’ll never ever go back to the sspx.
Wow,how far the Society has fallen.
Niklas, I can't find your comment, but TY to reply. (I don't have app)
Whatever happened to the devil’s advocate in the process of Canonization? Did the Novos Ordo not do away with him?
They actually have Satan speak up for the candidate. Quite a change
Salut Monseigneur!
About tribal infighting. If my Bishop and others asked me, other laity to not discuss subject(s) I would comply.
I respect all Sede Clergy.
Edit. If my Bishop, and other Bishops asked their laity...
Perhaps, dear host, you may be instrumental in the great work of unifying the sedevacantist bishops by more and more featuring them here in substantive interviews, like this one.
Lord willing
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad I'll pray for it!
@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad A few years ago, I actually brought this subject up to one of the bishops, whom I will not name. His reply angered me greatly. He said that because there is no pope, the sedevacantist bishops uniting together would be tantamount to schism, to forming a parallel church. I marveled that he could think anyone stupid enough to believe such utter nonsense. That he has deceived himself into believing it himself, is hard enough to believe. These endless divisions and splits are causing more and more Catholics to lose all respect for these men. Their fractiousness cannot be pleasing to God.
In the absence of a Pope, only a Pope can unify the Bishops, not a CZcams host. This is the impossible crisis.
Fr. Pierre Roy: Why, afterall, have we permitted ourselves these last 30 years to criticize the Fraternity of Saint Peter? Why have we more recently criticized Campos? Why did we repudiate the agreement reached in 2006 by the Institute of the Good Shepherd? Having recently asserted to a superior that it will be necessary for us to cease criticizing these communities, I received the following response: “Ah, but we will continue to criticize them!” I then asked why, by what principle. I received no further reply.
HERE IS THE REPLY YOU ALREADY KNOW: Because they have compromised by embracing as "Catholic" the Bogus Ordo Mess and the errors of Vatican II and the SSPX has not.
You need to correct Fr Pierre Roy to Bishop Pierre Roy. I assume this was an oversight
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad Remember that he was not a biship yet when he wrote that letter.
Got it, I didn’t realize you were quoting then Father Roy
Does the Bishop follow pre 55 Holy Week or restored Pius XII?
He follows the pre 55 Holy Week
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad oh wow not good
As Bisbop Altamira said during my interview with him (bishop Altamira does the restored Pius 12 Holy Week), “it is not something to fight over”. It would be interesting to hear Bishop Roy explain his position on the issue
It’s always a good talk. It’s an easy one though. If we agree Pius XII is a true pope the restored Holy Week is infallibly protected. It’s a schismatical position to be against it….and to be against the popes decision to restore it.
I am not in favor of such a strong position against the pre 55 Holy Week. There is a good video in defense of the reformed Holy Week by Catholic Crusade Films (who I have talked with) who takes a similar stance as well as a video interview with Stephen Heiner who is in favor of the pre 55 on Pre Vatican 2 Catholic Show discussing the issue. I am willing to stay neutral on the subject (although I lean toward to the restored Holy Week view).
The Edwardian Reformation was a part of the English Reformation that took place during King Edward VI's reign from 1547 to 1553. It marks the first time the Church of England became wholly Protestant, abandoning most of the Catholic undertones of Henry VIII's Church. During his reign, the Act of Uniformity, approved by Parliament in 1549, took the reformation forward by establishing a Book of Common Prayer. This contained the wording of prayers and the order of service to be used throughout the kingdom in place of the old Catholic practices. In belief & practice, the Act of Uniformity denied the Catholic belief of the Real Presence & the Mass as sacrificial act of atonement. Consequently, there was a defect of intention in administering the reformed rites of episcopal consecration & priestly ordination. In 1898, Pope Leo XIII published His Papal Encyclical APOSTOLICAE CURAE, in which He declared that the Edwardian rites were utterly null & void. Quaeritur: If we apply the same reasoning of the sacramental principles employed by Leo XII in APOSTOLICAE CURAE, do we arrive at the same conclusion regarding the Reformed Rites of Paul VI?
Follow up: The USCCB says that Vatican II "redefined" Holy Orders to match the Anglicans, and admits the new rites are similar to the Anglicans. In fact, they say that the Anglican rites should not be considered invalid, based on Vatican II.
@@dariusclovis1374I have argued that as well. Leo XIII said the Anglican rites were invalid because of a defect in form, yes, but mainly because their understanding of a bishop or priest meant they had no intention of being Catholic bishop or priest.
Lumen Gentium changed the concept of orders to be more inline with Anglicans, which would mean the Conciliarists have no real intention of being Catholic priests...
Thank you both for this discussion
I really wish that the criteria that Pope Leo XIII established would be discussed more frequently. Pius XII established the criteria for univocality of the form, but Leo XIII explained that the rest of the rite, as well as the understanding of the sacrament play a role in the intention.
If the Rite is not a Catholic rite (which means it deviates from what the Church has received and approved), then we cannot say for certain that the intention is Catholic...especially when the theology of the sacrament has changed.
@@dariusclovis1374 I remember reading that on the USCCB website last year. Can you post that link here? I haven't been able to find it since then.
This discussion of the nature of jurisdiction exercised by true traditional bishops is interesting. Although not constrained by defined territorial borders given the absence of a supreme pontiff, it nevertheless needs a type of permanence in relationship between bishop and priests characterized by obedience. In my view, the legitimacy of a Bishop's authority is dependent on his obedience to the the Pope. Since we are in interregnum, this must be to the magisterium, liturgy & disciplines to the last reigning Pope. Otherwise, the Church lacks unity, which is a Mark of the Church. She is one. Unity is found only in obedience to authority. This is another problem with Cassiciacum. It creates ambiguity in authority which eliminates unity. This is why obedience to Pope Pius XII's Holy Week is a big deal as is rejection of the Material Formal thesis. Both create division and questions of truth and validity. Unity is dependent upon certainty in truth and validity. When prelates take it upon themselves to adjust the liturgy they create disunity and when prelates take it upon themselves to redefine authority over time or in type, they create disunity. Who can know he is in the Church when he is with a Bishop who is a voluntary source of disunity? Catholicism truly is an all or nothing proposition. Novelty is something that by its nature is outside the Church. It is novel to find types of authority from anticatholics long cut off from any legitimacy. It is novelty to reject disciplines and liturgies imposed by the last Vicar of Christ to reign. As these realities become more evident over time, it would be nice to see the pinnacle virtue of humility rise in these validly consecrated Bishops and see them coalesce around Pope Pius XII to embrace the unity that has existed only where Bishops have not embraced these usurpation. Who can know he is in the Church otherwise. Does this makes sense? Any error should be highly problematic to a man aspiring to remain in the Church.
I really wish I could trust the Thuc Bishops. Maybe a new line can start under Vigano now that he has been re consecrared by Williamson
I understand but let me say this. There's an attitude of scruples for Latin Rite Catholics. For example, a Latin Catholic doesn't feel he loves God if he doesn't say 5 decades of the Rosary every day and so on.
The truth is Sacraments aren't that hard to confer, but with this attitude of scruples, we are tempted to doubt a lot of things and feel like something great is needed to consecrate a Bishop, so we find it hard to believe that a man we deem weak can perform something so great in our mind.
Now I'm not saying consecration of a Bishop isn't great, but humanly speaking, a 12 year old can say the traditional form that requires validity. It's just two sentences.
But I understand your situation. I always say, Faith requires Trust also. Trust that the person teaching us the faith is well intentioned.
But then, we believe in consecrations that happened in the Middle Ages, of people we don't even know, but can't believe consecrations of people we know. It's definitely scruples.
Thuc line is valid.
Thuc line is valid.
Personally,wish the Thuc,Lefebvre,and Mendez lines would conditionally Ordain/Consecrate each other.
Lefebvre's position i believe was to not to consecrate bishops without ABSOLUTE necessity without acceptance from Rome and i believe that's what He's excelency Fellay is doing. "Doesnt mean that all is allowed now just because the church is in crisis." SSPX needs to be justified in accordance to canon law as an act of charity to it.
Lefebrve has no friend here. I liked the 9
@@johnraymond-pz9bo nice charity brother
This bishop seems to be extremely more qualified than His Excellency Altamira, who gives the strong impression of theological naivity.
For Bishop Altamira, English was not his first language. He was a SSPX Prior in Columbia. The SSPX felt him qualified to lead a team of SSPX priests
But otherwise, I hope you enjoy this discussion with Bishop Roy
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad My impression of him rests on what he said about the first NOM-like and NOM-leading so-called 1955 reforms, non on his way of speaking English. Bishop Sanborn adressed this problem with very convincing points a few days ago. Generally, only to have been a prior with the FSSPX is not enoigh that someone should be consecrated to the Episcopacy, I think.
Ok, disregard my last comment. I personally understand both positions, but lend toward Bishop Espina and Altamira who do the Pius 12 changes (along with the CMRI). Bishop Pierre Roy on the other hand does the pre 55.
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTradwhat is the name of the congregation is Msr Roy? Who ordained him?
all nonsenses although I am a traditionalist I believe Novus ordos ordinations and consecrations are valid.
ALL nonsense? Seriously, there was not one thing you could agree with here?
The entire question of sedevacantism aside (a whole other silly issue in itself), Fr. Roy should seriously reflect on his position as a valid bishop. I like the man. He seems to be very educated, speaks well, and could do great thinks to maintain the True Church. But, unfortunately, he finds himself in a precarious situation - the Thuc line (1977 and onward) is very much doubtful. The two witnesses (Dr. Heller and Dr. Hiller) that were present at these consecrations in 1981confirm, on a recorded statement, that Archbishop Thuc was not in a clear state of mind, and that he had to be corrected in the form. He was a very good and intelligent bishop that had a rough life, God rest his soul. His conditional "consecration" of that non-catholic nutt job Laborie is just another example of how much the Archbishop had lost his mind. This is the same bishop that Archbishop Lefevre highly respected. But even Lefevre publicly warned the faithful to have nothing to do with this new Thuc line when he had heard what Archbishop Thuc had done (multiple times). Just as it could be possible (extremely doubtful) for a Norvus Ordo ordination or consecration to be valid (I am not stating that I believe that they are valid), we still do not recognize the validity because doubt exists. Anytime doubt is present, we must avoid it at all costs. Why would anybody play with Apostolic succession. It is always better to have 100% certainty than even the slightest doubt. I am not judging Fr. Roy, I just think it is a valid point to truly consider. It is better to be sure early on and be conditionally re-consecrated than to start creating another line of doubtful priests like the Dolanites and the Sandbornites. I have my many issues with the new direction of the SSPX; however, at least, for now, we have absolute certainty that our line of succession is valid. At least up to the four bishops that Archbishop Lefevre consecrated. Let's see what the future holds with Fellay's new direction. This situation in the Church is only going to get worse. And as we pray for the restoration of the Church, we should also pray that the traditionalist groups maintain some sort of cohesiveness. The more we start acting like the Norvus Ordo counter church by creating more muddy waters, the harder we make it to find the remnants of the True Church. We need to be battling to bring more and more people into what is left of the True Church, not creating more confusion amongst ourselves. Viva Cristo Rey!
Do you have a link or a source for those comments by the “two witnesses”? From this source below (Dr Heller) says otherwise
“In order to set aside any doubts concerning the Episcopal Consecrations by the deceased (+1984) Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc, which not only certain persons and groups in the United States, and in Central and South America, but recently also again in Germany, have asserted, I, Eberhard Heller, declare on oath that I was personally present at the aforesaid Consecrations dispensed by His Excellency, Archbishop Ngô-dinh-Thuc: I testify that His Excellency Mgr. M.L. Guérard des Lauriers O.P., was consecrated bishop on the 7th day of May, 1981 in Toulon, France, by His Excellency Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc; and that Their Excellencies Mgr. Moisés Carmona and Mgr. Adolfo Zamora also received Episcopal Consecration in Toulon, France on the 17th day of October, 1981, by His Excellency Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc. The Consecration was according to the “Pontificale Romanum” (Rome, 1908). Mgr. Ngôdinh-Thuc performed the ceremony in full possession of his faculties and in view of assisting the nead [sic] of the Roman Catholic Church, which he has presented in his public “Declaratio” on February 25, 1982, concerning “Sede Vacante”. Munich, 14th of February 1992 (sig.:) Eberhard Heller Eberhard Heller, “Affidavit Declaring the Episcopal Consecrations of Their Excellencies Bishop M. L. Guerard des Lauriers, Bishop Moisés Carmona and Bishop Adolfo Zamora,” Einsicht XXI, no. 5 (February 1992), p. 119. This declaration was published in Latin, German, French, Spanish, and English. On July 10, 1991, Dr. Heller had already sworn to this in the same way, but the affidavit was published in German only (see Eberhard Heller, “Eidesstattliche Erklärung zu den Bischofsweihen von I.E. Mgr. M. L. Guerard des Lauriers, Mgr. Moisés Carmona und Mgr. Adolfo Zamora,” Einsicht XXI, no. 2 [July 1991], p. 47).
Also for those who may be interested check out this video of Bishop Pivarunas defense of Bishop Thuc
czcams.com/video/sd9AEhAD16s/video.htmlsi=NMjoY1Ax5Zpa4M0Y
And this of Fr Radecki defense czcams.com/video/2tKfSxGab_I/video.htmlsi=aQFngeAerZamvHij
Is.the bishopr.sedevecantist
Yes
@@AcaoRestauracionista 😃
Yes.
Yes